« Sigh | Main | From the Papa Ratzi Fan Forum »
May 01, 2006
On the march..
Use this space to post your own experiences of what's going on around the country today.
Here's my stupid question:
Those who are protesting are protesting, sort of, in favor of the Bush proposals, and against any moves in Congress in the opposite direction.
Does the Bush administration understand that these protests/boycotts do not play in Peoria? (Well, I don't think they do, anyway). The the right-wing blogosphere is gung-ho to highlight any anti-Americanism expressed in these marches, any reconquista sentiments, and that's part of their base? (The other part being business which is, of course, also for the Bush proposals). That these marches probably do more to risk the success of Bush's proposals than anything else? I keep wondering if there's any communication that's ever gone on between the administration and these groups - yes, there are some immigration groups that are not supporting the boycotts - but in general, it seems that not discouraging this is a bad idea, from their perspective.
But then, I could be totally misreading the situation. Not the first time.
Three Catholic bishops have questions
The letter was signed by Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, Colorado Springs’ Bishop Michael Sheridan, and Pueblo’s Bishop Arthur Tafoya.
They said that “Walk-outs, as well-intentioned as they may be, do not serve that end.” Instead, they “will hurt many business owners and employers who already support fair immigration reform. They endanger the very jobs that immigrants have come so far to fill and work so hard to maintain. They also frustrate those who are undecided.”
The bishops urged “all people affected by the immigration debate to go to work, to go to school and to show the state and country the contributions that immigrants bring to Colorado.”
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Here's my stupid question (I haven't paid a lot of attention to this "boycott day"):
Is there an emphasis on those illegally in the country staying away from work? I mean, isn't that what this whole thing is about: the exact scope of who can come, legally, and what to do about those here, illegally?
So, while I understand those here legally protesting, that somewhat confuses things . . . doesn't it? (Do any of the proposals before Congress call for reducing slots for legal immigration?)
And, I certainly understand why those whose presence is, shall we say, "less than legal," would not like the more restrictive proposals being adopted . . .
It would seem a very bad idea for them to make clear where they work -- wouldn't it?
So, doesn't that leave the point being, "we, who are protesting, are legal, now, but we got here illegally." Doesn't that cut both ways: either for more legal slots, or for more effective control of the border?
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at May 1, 2006 1:27:31 PM
The marches aren't being egged on by the administration; most of the marchers (those that are voting citizens) would be voting Democratic.
It's an odd coalition of business groups and "compassionate conservatives" along with the usual suspects of the left that's for the pro-"amnesty" Senate package; the march organizers are among the latter group.
The protests don't help the cause at hand; if anything, all the Mexican flags rile up a nativist streak in a lot of Republicans and blue-collar Anglo Democrats. They might help the Democrats down the line in getting Hispanics riled up, but it doesn't help the Bush Administration.
Posted by: Mark Byron at May 1, 2006 1:28:55 PM
Amy, I think it's very safe to say that this isn't playing well in any of the Peorias of the country.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at May 1, 2006 1:31:50 PM
No, Mark I was wondering if the administration would be discouraging the marches..and why wouldn't they? I would think they would.
Posted by: amy at May 1, 2006 1:37:51 PM
There's supposed to be a protest downtown today. It's during the workday, so obviously they don't want any _real_ workers coming down there to counterprotest. Of course, most demonstrations are held during the day, for that very purpose.
I submit the following poster slogans:
Si legal,
BIENVENIDOS!
Si criminal,
ADIOS, AMIGOS!
On the other side of the sign, you can put:
Legal?
HELLO!
Illegal?
H*LL NO!
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at May 1, 2006 1:44:03 PM
Not in DC Metro either:
Interestingly, we saw Latino lawnworkers working til dark Saturday in our neighborhood. [We don't hire them. We do our own lawn.] We deduced that they were working late so they could take off today. So, they need the jobs and customers more than we need them, is my conclusion.
My husband made a sign and put it up near other political signs (tomorrow=election day) on the main street on which we're located-- but not right on our property. [We've got small kids. Gotta be careful.] He saw some one w/Dem bumperstickers take it up at 8 am today. [He couldn't get out of the house in time to stop it.] Could be just a local Dem who didn't want his signs associated with opposition to illegal aliens, or a direct supporter of illegal aliens.
Posted by: Peggy at May 1, 2006 1:47:48 PM
The Administration will not discourage the marches because it doesn't usually discourage any demo, and because discouraging THIS one will infuriate the base even more: once Bush starts giving tactical advice to the people who were waving the Mexican flag last in a few weeks bag, many people will go hermetile.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at May 1, 2006 1:52:37 PM
One thing I am noticing on radio (ABC) and in print press ( a variety, incl STL Post) is that the words "illegal aliens" are actually being used today by some reporters and news outlets.
Posted by: Peggy at May 1, 2006 1:58:46 PM
May is traditionally "Protest Month" in the San Francisco area. I first went to a Berkeley protest in 1977, and have been through many May's since. The weather is finally warm and wonderful, and it is not yet time for summer vacations (which always trump protests).
Just last weekend there was the sleep-over protest in Golden Gate Park for Darfur.
Also, for some reason, many of the local schools have a "no school day" today, so kids are with their parents.
I saw some families on the train heading for San Francisco, wearing T-shirts with Mexican flags and Spanish slogans. A wonderful day for a picnic protest! And there were the usual "older" protestors. For them, protesting in San Franciso is kind of a sport.
I wonder how many Americans realize that today is a National Holiday in Mexico (Primero de Mayo)? That's why my in-laws came up from Mexico this past weekend for a visit. It is International Worker's Day, and a memorial for the "Martyrs of Chicago". Don't know the Martyrs of Chicago? (Hint: Haymarket massacre.)
So, from a purely Mexican viewpoint, today is a holiday, it is "Labor(ers) Day," it is a day to celebrate all workers.
So the way the "boycott" is being packaged in the media in the US, it meshes quite nicely with the Mexican holiday.
Posted by: Old Zhou at May 1, 2006 2:01:03 PM
I agree with Amy that the politics of this is bizarre. My hunch is that notwithstanding the fact that "those who are protesting are protesting, sort of, in favor of the Bush proposals, and against any moves in Congress in the opposite direction," the protests are being organized by groups that are normally hostile to the Bush Administration and have few lines of communication with it. Moreover, call me cynical, but I have great misgivings about the sincerity of these organizing groups, who I suspect are more interested in garnering the political loyalty and support of Hispanic voters and future voters rather than actually helping them.
It is probably true that the Bushies proposals are in part a response to their small business political base, but mostly the Bushies are doing what executive branch administrations usually do -- working within real world constraints; they are not going to forceably expel 11,000,000 people even if they were somehow capable of doing such a thing. I'm not the biggest Thomas Friedman fan, but on this issue he is spot on: when it comes to Mexican immigration we need a high fence and a wide gate, and we need to regularize those already in the country. Americans will accept this approach if the high fence is accomplised first and foremost, especially if the wide gate is subject to the following two provisos:
First, we must favor immigrants who desire citizenship over those who do not.
Second, immigrants must acknowledge a desire to assimilate, including learning English. Sociological amalgamation is not the American experience and it is not acceptable to most Americans. We all know true assimilation takes time, usually a couple generations; but we should not accept new citizens who refuse to embrace the goal in concept.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 1, 2006 2:10:52 PM
Isn't it awfully ironic that all this is happening on the feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Posted by: wondrouspilgrim at May 1, 2006 2:38:23 PM
I keep wondering if there's any communication that's ever gone on between the administration and these groups
Communists and anarchists are not at all receptive to friendly communication with the Bush Administration.
As for "Why today?" --
May 1, "International Workers' Day (a name used interchangeably with May Day), is the commemoration of the Haymarket Riot of 1886 in Chicago, Illinois, and a celebration of the social and economic achievements of the international labor movement. The 1 May date is used because in 1884 the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, inspired by labor's 1872 success in Canada, demanded an eight-hour workday in the United States to come in effect as of May 1, 1886. This resulted in a general strike and the riot in Chicago of 1886, but eventually also in the official sanction of the eight-hour workday. The May Day Riots of 1894 and May Day Riots of 1919 occurred subsequently.
"Due to these left-wing overtones, May Day has long been a focal point for demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchist groups. . . . May Day in most of the world today is marked by huge street rallies of workers led by their trade unions and various large socialist and communist parties — a phenomenon not generally seen in the U.S. (which has a history of strong anti-communism) or the UK. . . . It was the Nazis, not the social democratic parties of the Weimar Republic, who made May Day a holiday in Germany, calling it the 'day of work,' which is its official name in the country. Through this co-opting the Nazis tried to take up the connotations of International Workers' Day, but did not permit socialist demonstrations on this day. Instead, they adapted it to fascist purposes."
Posted by: Bender at May 1, 2006 2:40:53 PM
Not everybody is participating in the boycott. Luis is finishing the tile work on my bathroom floor today. He arrived a little before 9 which is his custom.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at May 1, 2006 2:48:23 PM
Unlike in the U.S. where we mark it as the unoffical "end of summer", in much of the rest of the world, today is essentially Labor Day. (Which is also why a former pope made it the feast of St. Joseph the Worker in response to the socialist/communist undertones the day had taken on). I do find it interesting that the immigrant marches today are probably honoring the intent of such a holiday much better than we do with our typical bar-b-cues.
Posted by: tim at May 1, 2006 3:45:26 PM
If I understand Bender rightly, he's suggesting this day was chosen, primarily, for it's leftwing political association. That may be true; I wondered.
However, how do we know it wasn't also chosen because of it's Catholic association with St. Joseph the Worker?
I.e., aren't we asking a question about intent? And if so, how do we know the answer?
Before someone cites images or message via the media, dwell on the three words I just italicized, first . . .
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at May 1, 2006 4:01:33 PM
Its hard to discern any single intent to the marches - or their choice of day. Most of the actual participants, I would wager, are marching to show their intent to obtain fair treatment. If, as tim points out, this is the "labor day" for the rest of the world, or for St. Joseph the Worker, it sure makes sense to pick today. Also, the legislation affecting immigration is currently being debated (I would not be surprised if another demonstration occurs on our own Labor Day).
A particular organizers' intent is even more difficult to discern.
Posted by: c matt at May 1, 2006 4:30:17 PM
I'm guessing that the odd coalition of people and desires for demonstrating is signifigant in what led to this choice of day for marching and the making of big crowds.
They say 300,000 plus in Chicago. (Most of the Hispanic neighborhoods, in particular, are ghost towns today as everyone is downtown).
Cardinal George is set to lead an interfaith prayer service this afternoon in Grant Park in association with the event.
Posted by: tim at May 1, 2006 4:38:09 PM
Today we have the spectacle of people who refuse to obey immigration law refusing to work so they can demand the nation change its laws to suit the lawbreakers.
While in Mexico, according to AP, a Day Without Gringos proceeds, promoting a boycott of Americans goods.
Organizers in the U.S. include some labor unions looking to boost membership, plus some of the usual left-wing suspects, such as the Stalinist front group ANSWER, which in L.A. and other places apparently succeeded in joining with some local forces to launch the protest. The Washington Post noted that in many cities, including DC, local "immigrants rights" group distanced themselves from Answer, but as usual the Post utterly failed to describe what that group really stands for, speaking blandly of its opposition to the Bush Administration.
But hey, I'm just an American citizen who'd be deported from Mexico if I behaved as these nice protestors are, and it's probably racist of me to even bring some of this up, as I'm sure, um, La Raza would agree. I shall proceed to a reeducation camp directly.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at May 1, 2006 5:02:33 PM
For most, it is not a racial thing, but a law and order issue for the most part. But, I still wonder - if these were Englishmen or Swedes who had been bussing our tables, cutting our lawns, etc. and now were marching, would it really have been as big a deal? I am not saying race/xenophobia is the factor, or even a significant factor, but is it absolutely no factor in all of this?
Posted by: c matt at May 1, 2006 5:15:55 PM
For all the hoopla, Houston (at least downtown) seems pretty quiet. The news says the protesters gathered near Memorial Park (our largest and nicest) which is about 5 or so miles outside downtown.
Last time (early March?) there was a little bit in downtown - this time, it seems they have gotten smarter - don't p.o. people by tying up traffic (we'll see if they end before the 5 pm rush hour, which gets pretty bad near Memorial Park). Besides, its dang hot down here.
Posted by: c matt at May 1, 2006 5:28:49 PM
aren't we asking a question about intent? And if so, how do we know the answer?
Father, the answer is A.N.S.W.E.R.
Christopher Fotos has it exactly right. These latest protests, which merely happen to involve immigration, are backed and promoted by the same gang of usual suspects that back and promote nearly every other protest -- A.N.S.W.E.R. and like-minded anarchists, Marxists, Communists, and other folks who just plain like having a good radical march/riot. With the except of marches and protests by the pro-lifers and Blacks, I'll wager that the far left was behind every other protest -- at least here in the D.C. area. They were behind all the anti-war protests, the anti-IMF/World Bank protests, and they are heavily involved in the gay/lesbian/transgender/etc. protests.
That is not to say that everyone involved in the latest immigration issue is a leftist-anarchist, but it is the left that is pushing it (just as it is the left pushing Liberation Theology and other such ideas in Central and South America).
In short, yes, they did pick May Day for a reason.
Posted by: Bender at May 1, 2006 5:48:43 PM
2 points:
In the recent past every talk show that brings up this topic has persons calling in who either are not working or are unhappy with their jobs or something. They whine on and on about how these illegals are taking away jobs from Americans and that it isn't true that Americans won't do this kind of work. So I say, hey, today's your dream day. Just mosey on over to all those places of employment witout their illegal help, let them know you'll take those spots so they won't have to lose business and you'll continue on in that job indefinitely. Good for you. Good for employers. Good for America...no? Then the employers can tell the illegals that they no longer have work for them...that their spots have been filled. No work...no "Coming to America".!!
2. Aren't there an awful lot of complainers and rather hysterical anti-illegals who themselves are pretty complicit in the status quo about which they are yelling? I mean it's not like all of a sudden we've been invaded yesterday by millions and millions of folks who should never have been allowed in. This has been going on for decades and it seemed, at least to me, that it was rather accepted as kind of the norm, hovering in the background...or even an elephant in the living room gone unseen. These people have not been invisible. Americans just accepted their plight of accepting a necessary evil to live more affordably upon the labor offered and this, again, for decades. Did the numbers finally reach a magic goal or something? So...why this new "hysteria" now? Haven't there always been drug runners, crime involved? Haven't there always been rather gripey yet civil discussions about health care or prominent people being caught with illegals who've had all kinds of media attention, even losing their proposed political positions? And yet, there was no screaming or quite the polarization. People lived through an amnesty prior to this without that much yelling. Why now? Just asking.
Posted by: chris K at May 1, 2006 6:25:03 PM
In St Paul-Minneapolis, there didn't appear to be a local march of any size but a local Latino media owner, Alberto Monserrate, born in Puerto Rico and thus a U.S. citizen by birth, posted the following on a Minneapolis Issues Forum: "It seems like all Latino businesses in Lake Street Minneapolis, and In North East of Minneapolis, and in the East and West Side of St Paul are closed. That's over 300 businesses. We sent a reporter to the Mall of America, and she saw virtually no Latino shoppers today,(very weird at the Mall specially since so many Latinos have taken the day off today) 80 pct of the Latino employees at the Mall of America food court didn't show up. A Mc Donald's in Lake Street had less than 50 pct of all employees not show up today. Several schools in Minneapolis and St Paul hare reporting over 50 pct of Latino kids not going to school. Also helped Chipotles in Minnesota having over 50 pct of employees not showing up. Cargill has closed down many of its plants. Swift and Co in Worthington closed."
He added that "I'm not a big supporter of the boycott today. I'm worried about a possible political backlash, and that the brunt of the economic impact of the boycott is falling on Latino business owners."
But this could be the birth of a national Latino movement. They have not been noted for voting in the past. That may change.
Posted by: Ray from MN at May 1, 2006 6:52:40 PM
Aren't there an awful lot of complainers and rather hysterical anti-illegals who themselves are pretty complicit in the status quo about which they are yelling? I mean it's not like all of a sudden we've been invaded yesterday by millions and millions of folks who should never have been allowed in. This has been going on for decades and it seemed, at least to me, that it was rather accepted as kind of the norm...
Speak for yourself! Many people have never accepted this as the norm, and have been bamboolzed into thinking the norm of obeying laws and controlling borders was at least the goal, by actions such as the 1986 amnesty that was promised to be the last one, before this new last one the Senate and President Bush is talking about now.
Anyway, here's a post with something for everyone, from Pajamas Media:
With large crowds of illegal immigrants gathering at two locations in Los Angeles, extensive backroom planning to avoid offending U.S. citizens appeared to have failed: crowds are carrying about 60% Mexican flags, just 40% U.S. or other flags. KABC TalkRadio reported “there’s not a sign out there saying they want a ‘guest worker’ program — they all say they want full amnesty.” Many signs carried by illegal immigrants insist they have “no rights,” but some California newspapers, including the Daily News of Los Angeles and San Francisco Chronicle, have begun analyzing the extensive programs and freebies widely available to illegal aliens in California. California Conservative analyzes the system by which illegal immigrants steal social security numbers and identities of average Americans, while Publius Pundit says integration of legal and illegal Mexicans must be embraced: “They aren’t going anywhere.”
Embedded links in the original post.
The question by another commenter about whether the reaction would be different if there were 10 million illegal Irish aliens involves a whole 'nother range of issues too lengthy for a mere combox. The short version is that every society and ethnicity has racist elements--just read what some Mexicans say about white Americans. But this wave of illegal immigration is different for a number of reasons. One is the massive scale of the illegal immigration. Another is the fact that Mexico is right next door and connected by land. Another is the irredentist undertone--my Irish, Greek and Lebanese grandparents did not have any pretensions of reclaiming lost territory here. Yet another is the anti-American sentiments boiling in this brew, by no means limited to some of the illegal immigrants. Yet another is the state of modern media and communications, which allows Latino illegals (and legals) to remain immersed in their home culture, giving old ways and allegiances much more staying power and thus weakening the pressures to integrate. Not last but also not least is the multicultural mania of key segments of the English-speaking elite, including academia, mainstream media, and the left and liberal America generally. In the multicultural world, assimiliation is a dirty word, creating another terrace of fractures in American society.
And that's the short version.
Massive numbers of Irish, the English, the Italians, etc., indeed arrived on these shores, but most of them did so legally and they did it during an age when assimilation was not expected, it was demanded and necessary for most people to function in life. That's not true anymore.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at May 1, 2006 6:57:49 PM
One thing I am noticing on radio (ABC) and in print press ( a variety, incl STL Post) is that the words "illegal aliens" are actually being used today by some reporters and news outlets.
I hope that's true. The issue is framed so deceptively most of the time as an "immigration" debate. It's about illegal immigration. I even hear Catholic bishops muddy those waters.
You see the same thing in most mainstream media coverage of stem-cell issues. How many times have I read not only headlines but full stories talk about Catholic opposition to stem cell research? Many times. Embryonic, folks, embryonic; it's not even that long a word.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at May 1, 2006 7:08:42 PM
